I’ve been doing consumer reports for over 34 years and, from my perspective, the No. 1 consumer issue is the sad state of the mainstream media.

It has become something other than a segment of the media, and now can be correctly described as a propaganda organ of a Democratic Party controlled executive branch of the U.S. Government.

What’s worse, it is totally biased, dishonest, and fraudulent and can no longer be trusted to deliver the information needed by the American people.

It pulled off the biggest fraud in electoral history by pushing the election of President Barack Obama, and is continuing to work hand-in-hand with the Obama administration in destroying America as we know it.

That’s why this column has so often focused on the sad state of the mainstream media on which the proper functioning of our society depends.

Here’s a perfect illustration of what that mean in practice. One of the strongest supporters of Islamic terrorism is our mainstream media. That’s because its political correctness means that the mainstream media doesn’t give the public the truth about the threat of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call it – Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, hijacked Islam, jihadism, etc.).

In other words, if we don’t kill political correctness, it will kill us by making us unaware of the ongoing war fought by radical Islam against the U.S. and the West. If you can’t even identify your enemy and be honest in describing your enemy, you are a dead duck.

President Obama and his administration are among the foremost practitioners of political correctness, and that’s one of many reasons the Obama administration is a threat to the survival of America.

The infection of political correctness is as widespread as it is dangerous, but this column will focus on political correctness in the mainstream media.

Former President George H.W. Bush (Bush I), right after the Fort Hood jihadist attack, came up with one of the best definitions of political correctness:

“The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.”

If you analyze the bias of the dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media, you will find it is consistently on the wrong side of history, and runs contrary to America’s values. It is, in fact, anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-family-values, anti-law-enforcement, and anti-military.

The mainstream media is also politically correct, and one consequence of that is the mainstream media’s downplaying or ignoring the threat of radical Islam. It is now politically incorrect to point out the dangers of the threat of radical Islam. So, the American Congress for Truth (ACT) has just published a Citizen Media Monitoring Guide, designed – in the words of Brigette Gabriel, president of ACT and a leading authority on radical Islam — “for citizens concerned about politically-correct driven media bias as it relates to radical Islam. As the Ft. Hood jihadist attack painfully demonstrated, political correctness can be more than annoying and frustrating — it can be deadly.”

The Guide gives this example: “In the hours and days following the attack, news anchors, commentators, and journalists bent over backwards to avoid characterizing the attack as a jihadist attack or a terrorist attack. One study found that between November 5 and November 10, fully 65 percent of the reports produced by ABC, NBC and CBS News did not mention the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism.’”

The deadly political correctness also meant that no alarm bells were sounded by the Fort Hood jihadist’s fellow-workers, by the mainstream media, or by federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Consider what the Fort Hood jihadist told the people at Fort Hood in a speech he delivered: He said he believed Sharia (Muslim law) should trump the U.S. Constitution (a view that is illegal and criminal for a military officer, as he is sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution).

He justified suicide bombings. And he said the war on terror was a war on Islam. Those are not just “dots” to be connected.

Those are oceans of information only fools could miss. Those are not only red flags, but they are also red flags burning in a swimming pool of gasoline. How could such red flags be ignored?

They could, and that suggests that political correctness at Fort Hood was made possible by a much larger phenomenon – the atmosphere of political correctness created by the Obama administration in all agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Army, and created by the mainstream media.

The Weekly Standard (Jan. 18, 2010) has a classic illustration of political correctness at where you would expect it in its purest and most dangerous form — The New York Times.

It involves the question of profiling and whether airport and other security personnel should assume a 23-year-old Nigerian poses a greater risk than a frail 83-year-old grandmother from Nebraska.

The Web site of The Times ran a piece entitled “Will Profiling Make a Difference?” by Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Mr. Marayati wrote:

“Focus on one particular ethnicity or country of origin, and the terrorists will recruit from somewhere else. Many terrorism suspects came from within the United States and European Union countries.”

In other words, as The Weekly Standard notes, this might mean al-Qaida will have to recruit among Scottish Presbyterians or Pennsylvania Mennonites, and it says that would be a great accomplishment.

This kind of illogical left-wing garbage is what you would expect to find in The New York Times, but it gets worse. It turns out that Al-Marayati “is an odd messenger for The Times to have selected. Right after the 9/11 attacks, he went on a radio station in Los Angeles with this bit of psychotic logic:

“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kind of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this [the 9/11 attacks] diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”

The Weekly Standard concludes, “So, Marayati isn’t opposed to ‘profiling,’ after all. He just wants to focus on one particular country of origin [Israel].”